This is a compilation of objections that, in my experience, Christians have risen.
Before I begin, consider what 2 Timothy 3:16 says:
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Considering this, the fact that giving a defense to those that ask of us for a reason of the hope that is in us is required; how can anyone say that apologetics is pointless?
Having said that, let’s begin shall we?
Objection 1: “There is no point of doing Apologetics because it doesn’t save anyone.”
Consider if we replaced the word “apologetics” with the word “evangelism” instead and said, “There is no point in evangelism because it doesn’t save anyone”. Should we abandon the practice of evangelism merely because it doesn’t save anyone? Of course not! For we are commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:10 to “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Likewise, we are told in 1st Peter 3:15 to “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you for a reason of the hope that is in you”.
Both Matthew 28:10 and 1st Peter 3:15 are both commandments issued by God to do very different things, yet no one thinks for a moment of ceasing to evangelize. God commands us to have a defense ready for the hope in us, and for that reason alone is why there is a point of doing apologetics!
Furthermore, if we consider what John 6:44 says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day”, apart from God’s drawing, neither apologetics nor evangelism could save anyone! Thus, apologetics, like evangelism is a tool which God utilizes to draw us to Himself.
Let’s address the claim that apologetics doesn’t save anyone.
It seems to me that such a claim is ignorance of apologists that are actively professing that apologetics brought them to salvation. For example, Lee Strobel and asserts that had it not been for apologetics, salvation would’ve been impossible for them. Lee began his search for the evidence of the resurrection of Christ was the way in which his wife, shortly after her conversion to Christianity, acted towards her family. For Lee and doubting Thomas, both of which needed evidence to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. What would’ve happened if apologetics wasn’t there? Moreover, to say that God can’t use apologetics as a tool to draw people to Himself is limiting God.
Objection 2: “Debating and arguments are of the flesh, which relies on the mind, and since the mind is enmity against God; it is wrong to debate.”
In order for one to avoid the conclusion of this proposition, namely that it is wrong to debate, one has to avoid debating any subject, including that apologetics is wrong. It is difficult to avoid this situation especially since they are proposing reasons why I am incorrect. Folks, this is the essence of debating. Ironically, by them doing this, they are debating and therefore, by their own admission wrong! Furthermore, the one positing this is contradicting himself!
The most devastating argument to this objection is Paul, for he was constantly debating his beliefs in the Synagogues -Consider the book of Acts -refer to Acts 19:33, Acts 22:1, and Acts 24:10. He even admits that he is using a “fleshly” argument at one point in Romans! People in Paul’s day objected to things he taught, both Jew’s and Gentiles alike. For example, in the book of Romans, Paul explains an argument someone gave to him concerning something he said, “We will do evil to let God be true” and to defeat this argument, Paul used his mind rather than the scriptures. And therefore, we aren’t supposed to exclusively use scriptures to get our point across.
For those that are reading this that say we shouldn't have extra-Bible arguments to defend our position, consider Psalms 91:1 which states, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands". Moreover, in Hebrews 3:4, the author gives an example of how to detect Fine Tuning! Observe, "Every house has a builder; but he that built all things is God". This is an example that Intelligent Design proponents use to provide a positive case for ID.
Objection 3: “Oh no, I am using scripture and not man’s wisdom, therefore, debating isn’t bad."
Unfortunately, this is a blatant contradiction to the previous objection.
What I find most demonstrable about this is that they think this somehow distracts one from the fact they are still debating. Question, if debating is wrong, how is it that only you can debate because you are using Scripture? Why are you the exclusion? It seems as though they have found their own loophole to defend their position of anti-Apologetics and continue to debate while saying it is wrong for others to debate. Perhaps a double-standard?
But let us entertain this as a separate proposition and see if it holds any water.
Paul used extra-biblical reasoning to defend some of his position, David used an ID argument, and in the book of Hebrews 3:4, the author eludes to an illustration of Intelligent Design. Therefore, I don’t see any reason that we can’t use extra-biblical argumentation. So, to avoid this, one has to maintain a non-Pauline view, deny that David is using such an argument, and refute Hebrews.
Objection 4: “I have faith that God exists.”
This doesn’t seem address apologetics, thus rendering it inadequate. But let’s addresses it anyway.
Consider the following conversation between you and someone who believed in fairies.
Let (a) stand for a Christian and let (b) stand for one that believes in fairies.
(a) Asks (b), why do you believe in fairies?
(b) Responds with, I have faith that fairies exist and that you should believe me on this basis.
(a) Replies, what evidence do you have to back up this assertion
To which (b) replies with, there was a book written about these fairies, and it confirms my beliefs, and if you don’t believe that fairies exist, tortured for an eternity
Ask yourselves, would you believe that fairies exist based upon these reasons? If you have answered no, then why would you think that an atheist would accept your beliefs on the basis of you saying God exists because the Bible says so; and the Bible is correct because it says it is?
Objection 5: “We don’t have to defend God; He can do that all by himself."
First and foremost, this misconstrues that which apologetics is defending. On this basis, I can reject this Red Herring alone. But to get the point across, I’ll respond anyway.
Apologetics purpose isn’t to defend God, His nature, or His attributes; it is the hope that is in us, as 1st Peter 3:15 postulates. To say “God can do it all by himself” forgets that we are co-laborers which God has declared in the Scriptures.
Furthermore, if God can defend Himself, He can most certainly evangelize all by Himself too, correct? Would you reject practicing evangelism based on this line of reasoning? No, of course not! So why would this objection prevent an apologist from practicing apologetics?
I will leave you all with two quotes that sum up the importance of apologetics:
"If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if the world were uneducated. But, as it is, a cultural life will exist outside the church whether it exists inside or not. To be ignorant and simple now - not to be able to meet enemies on their own ground - would be to throw down our weapons, and betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen." - C. S. Lewis
"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or o...f the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion. Under such circumstances, what God desires us to do is to destroy the obstacle as its root.” – J. Gresham Machens
Before I begin, consider what 2 Timothy 3:16 says:
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Considering this, the fact that giving a defense to those that ask of us for a reason of the hope that is in us is required; how can anyone say that apologetics is pointless?
Having said that, let’s begin shall we?
Objection 1: “There is no point of doing Apologetics because it doesn’t save anyone.”
Consider if we replaced the word “apologetics” with the word “evangelism” instead and said, “There is no point in evangelism because it doesn’t save anyone”. Should we abandon the practice of evangelism merely because it doesn’t save anyone? Of course not! For we are commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:10 to “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Likewise, we are told in 1st Peter 3:15 to “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you for a reason of the hope that is in you”.
Both Matthew 28:10 and 1st Peter 3:15 are both commandments issued by God to do very different things, yet no one thinks for a moment of ceasing to evangelize. God commands us to have a defense ready for the hope in us, and for that reason alone is why there is a point of doing apologetics!
Furthermore, if we consider what John 6:44 says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day”, apart from God’s drawing, neither apologetics nor evangelism could save anyone! Thus, apologetics, like evangelism is a tool which God utilizes to draw us to Himself.
Let’s address the claim that apologetics doesn’t save anyone.
It seems to me that such a claim is ignorance of apologists that are actively professing that apologetics brought them to salvation. For example, Lee Strobel and asserts that had it not been for apologetics, salvation would’ve been impossible for them. Lee began his search for the evidence of the resurrection of Christ was the way in which his wife, shortly after her conversion to Christianity, acted towards her family. For Lee and doubting Thomas, both of which needed evidence to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. What would’ve happened if apologetics wasn’t there? Moreover, to say that God can’t use apologetics as a tool to draw people to Himself is limiting God.
Objection 2: “Debating and arguments are of the flesh, which relies on the mind, and since the mind is enmity against God; it is wrong to debate.”
In order for one to avoid the conclusion of this proposition, namely that it is wrong to debate, one has to avoid debating any subject, including that apologetics is wrong. It is difficult to avoid this situation especially since they are proposing reasons why I am incorrect. Folks, this is the essence of debating. Ironically, by them doing this, they are debating and therefore, by their own admission wrong! Furthermore, the one positing this is contradicting himself!
The most devastating argument to this objection is Paul, for he was constantly debating his beliefs in the Synagogues -Consider the book of Acts -refer to Acts 19:33, Acts 22:1, and Acts 24:10. He even admits that he is using a “fleshly” argument at one point in Romans! People in Paul’s day objected to things he taught, both Jew’s and Gentiles alike. For example, in the book of Romans, Paul explains an argument someone gave to him concerning something he said, “We will do evil to let God be true” and to defeat this argument, Paul used his mind rather than the scriptures. And therefore, we aren’t supposed to exclusively use scriptures to get our point across.
For those that are reading this that say we shouldn't have extra-Bible arguments to defend our position, consider Psalms 91:1 which states, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands". Moreover, in Hebrews 3:4, the author gives an example of how to detect Fine Tuning! Observe, "Every house has a builder; but he that built all things is God". This is an example that Intelligent Design proponents use to provide a positive case for ID.
Objection 3: “Oh no, I am using scripture and not man’s wisdom, therefore, debating isn’t bad."
Unfortunately, this is a blatant contradiction to the previous objection.
What I find most demonstrable about this is that they think this somehow distracts one from the fact they are still debating. Question, if debating is wrong, how is it that only you can debate because you are using Scripture? Why are you the exclusion? It seems as though they have found their own loophole to defend their position of anti-Apologetics and continue to debate while saying it is wrong for others to debate. Perhaps a double-standard?
But let us entertain this as a separate proposition and see if it holds any water.
Paul used extra-biblical reasoning to defend some of his position, David used an ID argument, and in the book of Hebrews 3:4, the author eludes to an illustration of Intelligent Design. Therefore, I don’t see any reason that we can’t use extra-biblical argumentation. So, to avoid this, one has to maintain a non-Pauline view, deny that David is using such an argument, and refute Hebrews.
Objection 4: “I have faith that God exists.”
This doesn’t seem address apologetics, thus rendering it inadequate. But let’s addresses it anyway.
Consider the following conversation between you and someone who believed in fairies.
Let (a) stand for a Christian and let (b) stand for one that believes in fairies.
(a) Asks (b), why do you believe in fairies?
(b) Responds with, I have faith that fairies exist and that you should believe me on this basis.
(a) Replies, what evidence do you have to back up this assertion
To which (b) replies with, there was a book written about these fairies, and it confirms my beliefs, and if you don’t believe that fairies exist, tortured for an eternity
Ask yourselves, would you believe that fairies exist based upon these reasons? If you have answered no, then why would you think that an atheist would accept your beliefs on the basis of you saying God exists because the Bible says so; and the Bible is correct because it says it is?
Objection 5: “We don’t have to defend God; He can do that all by himself."
First and foremost, this misconstrues that which apologetics is defending. On this basis, I can reject this Red Herring alone. But to get the point across, I’ll respond anyway.
Apologetics purpose isn’t to defend God, His nature, or His attributes; it is the hope that is in us, as 1st Peter 3:15 postulates. To say “God can do it all by himself” forgets that we are co-laborers which God has declared in the Scriptures.
Furthermore, if God can defend Himself, He can most certainly evangelize all by Himself too, correct? Would you reject practicing evangelism based on this line of reasoning? No, of course not! So why would this objection prevent an apologist from practicing apologetics?
I will leave you all with two quotes that sum up the importance of apologetics:
"If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if the world were uneducated. But, as it is, a cultural life will exist outside the church whether it exists inside or not. To be ignorant and simple now - not to be able to meet enemies on their own ground - would be to throw down our weapons, and betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen." - C. S. Lewis
"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or o...f the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion. Under such circumstances, what God desires us to do is to destroy the obstacle as its root.” – J. Gresham Machens